Kohlreiter v. MacKay

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Kohlreiter v. MacKay

166 A. 163, 110 N.J.L. 448, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 517

DecidedApril 27, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A. 163 (Kohlreiter v. MacKay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kohlreiter v. MacKay, 166 A. 163, 110 N.J.L. 448, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 517 (N.J. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court' dismissing a writ of certiorari. The writ of certiorari reviewed an order of Judge Mackay confirming certain assessments for benefits under certain ordinances and resolutions of the city of Clifton. The Supreme Court affirmed the action of the Circuit Court judge and in so doing we are of the opinion that the right result was reached.

*449 Appellants admit before this court that the validity of the ordinances is not questioned. They say, however, the asessments were not in accordance with the ordinances and, therefore, the appellants could not know that an assessment for the work contemplated would be imposed and in this respect refer to the acquisition of two parcels of land and the relocation of the rails of the street car company. We think the Supreme Court properly dealt with the assessments and that there was no fraud committed on the taxpayers by reason of the assessments made.

The judgment under review is therefore affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heher, Yan Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Dill, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court' dismissing a writ of certiorari. The writ of certiorari reviewed an order of Judge Mackay confirming certain assessments for benefits under certain ordinances and resolutions of the city of Clifton. The Supreme Court affirmed the action of the Circuit Court judge and in so doing we are of the opinion that the right result was reached.

*449 Appellants admit before this court that the validity of the ordinances is not questioned. They say, however, the asessments were not in accordance with the ordinances and, therefore, the appellants could not know that an assessment for the work contemplated would be imposed and in this respect refer to the acquisition of two parcels of land and the relocation of the rails of the street car company. We think the Supreme Court properly dealt with the assessments and that there was no fraud committed on the taxpayers by reason of the assessments made.

The judgment under review is therefore affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heher, Yan Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Dill, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A. 163, 110 N.J.L. 448, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kohlreiter-v-mackay-nj-1933.